ACLU and Orwell: Gun Control Laws Enhance Liberty and Freedom

The American Civil Liberties Union is now claiming that Americans are promoting government repression by exercising their gun rights.

The ACLU has never recognized firearms ownership and their use as a fundamental right. In a March position statement, they let it be known that there are few if any restrictions on gun ownership that they view as violations Second Amendment freedoms. Also, arming teachers is somehow racist. Or something.

Proposals to arm teachers and install metal detectors in schools also raise significant civil liberties implications. Introducing more guns to schools will not make them safer and may especially endanger children of color, who already bear the brunt of teachers and administrators’ racial biases. The solution to gun violence is not more guns, but less.

The ACLU has conspicuously ignored self defense as a right for decades when it involves the use of firearms. This glaring omission gets embarrassing public attention every time people exercising ACLU-approved rights are attacked or killed.

While the ACLU touts itself as a protector of all civil liberties, the core funders of the ACLU strongly support restrictive gun control laws. The ACLU has been attempting to straddle the fence on gun controls for a long time and their internal discomfort has risen sharply since the left’s manufactured response to the Parkland shooting.

It took months, but the ACLU now seem to have found the specious argument yet to explain away their blatant hypocrisy: gun control actually enhances freedom.

Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, for example, reacted to the May mass school shooting in Santa Fe by callingfor the state’s intelligence fusion centers to engage in automated monitoring of residents’ social media accounts to try to detect incipient attacks. Mass monitoring of Americans’ public social media conversations is the digital equivalent of putting a secret policeman in every coffee shop to listen in on public conversations and report suspicions to the authorities. That is a deeply un-American approach to law enforcement that is highly unlikely to be effective and, at the same time, highly likely to significantly chill our free-wheeling public life.

Gov. Abbott also encouraged state residents to install an app on their phones for reporting tips of suspicious behavior — just the kind of thing that is likely to push people into over-reporting non-conforming behavior to the authorities. Every high school and community in America has people who are alienated and angry or are seen as such by those around them. I worry that if mass shooting events continue, the threshold for suspicion will become much lower and that ever-greater numbers of people will be reported based on ever-slighter suspicions, and based on biases of various kinds, and we’re going to have a lot more law enforcement officers intruding into our lives a lot more based on a lot less. After Parkland, there was a wave of reporting to police of behavior that people found suspicious in those around them.

As we as a society consider the issue of gun violence, these implications for American freedom also need to become part of the conversation. In particular, those who support expansive gun rights as a protection against excessive government power should strongly consider how much government intrusion and expanded power they’re willing to trade for those rights.

This ACLU screed still fails the hypocrisy test. They have never, ever blamed people exercising other ACLU-approved rights for any adverse reactions to those freedoms, even when mayhem and disorder ensued. Quite the opposite, the ACLU has always attacked the reactions. It’s what they do.

Ultimately, the ACLU will come to regret this deceit. They will have to develop ever more convoluted arguments as other rights of which they do approve are used by criminals and bad actors to victimize the public.

comments

ACLU is Linguistics Manipulation for “The Union To Promote Socialist Ideals”. Its always been a Socialist propaganda organization hiding behind a name that people will mistake for supporting Constitutional Rights. The fact is they despise the US Constitution.

ACLU gets the vast majority of its funding from a tiny number of people and foundations, all of whom are highly partisan Democrats. It is a way to channel charitable funding to Democrat talking points.
The remainder virtually all comes from criminal trial lawyers which push ACLU toward being an industry front for criminals.

And look at this gem:In particular, those who support expansive gun rights as a protection against excessive government power should strongly consider how much government intrusion and expanded power they’re willing to trade for those rights.

The EXACT same thing could be said for anyone who supports strong First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Amendment rights. Is the ACLU really saying that those who support expansive first amendment rights “should strongly consider how much government intrusion and expanded power they’re willing to trade for those rights?”

I’ve said it before and I will say it again the ACLU has NEVER supported the Bill of Rights. They have never supported the First Amendment. Just ask the anti abortion protester if the ACLU or any member of the three L’s Libertarians Liberals and the Left, if they supported their 1st amendment rights???

But the ACLU and others did support the people protesting in Seattle at the World Trade Organization whose protesters caused a billion and a half dollars worth of damage.

They have no history of supporting civil rights in the United States.

The problem is people do not want to address the history of what the ACLU did support. That is private sexual activity as well as drug use. The ACLU was also a big supporter of the homeless. See San Francisco and the rest of California for the results.

A decision was made by the ACLU and many other people to place certain actions ie. uninhibited public and private sex and drug use, over having firearms. Just watch the Folsom Street Fair or any gay pride parade. Sex and drug, yes. No to firearms.

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

1.9 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense weapons on their own property. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition.

That is the organization that wants to take away your first amendment and guns? They want you to be able to own automatics. Without a tax stamp. Liberals and the Left, sure, but make it the two Ls. I have my issues with the Libertarian Party, but you should get your facts straight.

But three ‘L’s sounds so much better than two ‘L’s!
This has been pointed out to Chris repeatedly by various people. He doesn’t budge.
He also seems to have something against sexual acts between consenting adults – even private ones.

I’m very happy I make Libertarians Liberals and the Left uncomfortable. When you can show me when they have supported abortion protesters 1st amendment rights, I will reconsider my position.

Or show me were the three L’s Libertarians Liberals and the Left are against government money for abortions.

Or show me when they were against the welfare industrial complex. They seem to have a problem with heterosexual relationships. Because single mothers on welfare are persecuted when they have a relationship with a man.

Prior to the creation of the welfare industrial complex. The church was where people got their social relief from. Of course this was religious-based. And the Three L’s have never supported religious support systems. Because those religious support systems also put moral codes on to people. And the Three L’s would rather have a secular government support system for the people instead of a private religious organization.

the govt is becoming more intrusive in an effort to stop gun crime, therefore gun control is pro-liberty.

WHAT??!

he ignores the level of intrusiveness required by the govt to enforce universal background checks (stings), AR bans (criminalization, no-knock raids), and emergency restraining orders (no due process). and obviously the ACLU will never mention the community to be hardest hit by govt intrusion in the name of gun control.. spoiler: poor urban blacks.

If there was ever any doubt that the ACLU practices selective civil liberties then this is it. Funny how they don’t have the guts to go after the liberal politicians in the blue states who are writing these extra constitutional laws that are destroying our freedom.

In 1978, when the ACLU still backed Freedom of Speech, the organization successfully supported a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through Skokie, IL. The ACLU took a lot of flack from its contributors for that action.

Ever since 1978, the ACLU has moved far to the left of its original mission. The ACLU is now even more corrupt than Ed Meese claimed that it was way back then. It is a full-fledged member of the Resistance and the Anti-Trump coup d’etat and a true enemy of all Americans.

The ACLU expects no consequences will flow from this. I expect that there will be grave consequences if the coup fails, and even graver consequences if it succeeds.

The ACLU has one purpose and that is to infuriate people. They will not stand up for anyone’s constitutional rights or the right to due process . They are liberals that only will fight for the rights of criminals. The criminal is the victim according to the ACLU.

The ACLU (American Communist Lawyers Union) evolved out of the National Lawyers Guild, which was formed by progressive lawyers in 1936 and was affiliated with the American Communist Party. IMHO, the ACLU is very selective in the “civil rights” it chooses to support, most of which are supportive of the Progressive left side of the political spectrum. A couple of weeks ago, I was surprised to get an ACLU fund-raising letter (the first I’ve ever received from them – has the ACLU fallen on hard times?), shilling for money. I sent them back a note (in their postage-paid envelope) explaining that I would only consider donating money to the ACLU when it gets its act together and supports ALL rights equally, including the 2nd Amendment, and in the meantime I would donate the money they asked for to the NRA.

There were several socialists and Communists among the organization’s founders, along with labor organizers who were even more to the left than the Communists, and “feminists” who were ahead of their time in hating men. Frankfurter was a major force behind letting the Federal government run wild. And there was also a blind person.

Well technically they have become flaky on the 1st too since they stated they won’t defend those that are considered part of the alt-right. Also I can’t recall them ever having defended state’s power so it needs to be updated to
How does the ACLU count to 10?
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

yep, thats hypocrisy. the exact definition. sad. but did we really expect anything else from an organization based in Commiefornia? shouldn’t have. where are they when their own state citizens get violated DAILY? in their office.

“I worry that if mass shooting events continue, the threshold for suspicion will become much lower and that ever-greater numbers of people will be reported based on ever-slighter suspicions, and based on biases of various kinds, and we’re going to have a lot more law enforcement officers intruding into our lives a lot more based on a lot less. After Parkland, there was a wave of reporting to police of behavior that people found suspicious in those around them.”

So reporting suspicious people is UnAmerican and reduces our liberties. Well, given the (required) reporting of suspicious neighbors behind the Iron Curtain, I can see the point. But what does this have to do with guns? Will eliminating guns somehow reduce the number of suspicious people? There is a logical disconnect here of massive proportions.

The ACLU is run by those of the (((tribe))). That is all one needs to know where and (((who))) the problems are with this organization. In fact, the ACLU should be required to register a an “agent of a foreign government”, along with the ADL and AIPAC.

Seriously? Go back into your hovel, you anti-Semitic nutter. The ACLU has gone from defending people who should be defended (see Loving v Virginia) to a leftist advocacy org, sure, but that doesn’t mean your filth has anything to add.

I love the opinion of the ACLU that teachers and school administrators, products of a half century of liberal political propaganda, are racist. It’s great to see them eat their young. Remember, “Freedon is Slavery”.

JUST like it did for the Germana in the late 30s. And such liberty and freedom for the Jews, all 6,000,000,000 of them. If the ACLU said that it signals that they all have one BLUE eye. And they aren’t truly out to protect civil liberties. If you surrender on the second it is SO much easier to surrender on the rest of 4 thru 8.

Fox32 today beamed about the fact that Chicago Police Department seized 5000 guns. As if it mattered one tiny bit.

This BS always gets me.
We know for a fact that bad guys bent on killing innocent people don’t give a shit about laws. There is simply no way to disarm attackers. They will always find a way to hurt and kill if they want. Its not like they can’t smuggle, manufacture or steal more guns. Or use different weapon altogether, as a bomb, poison or fire. So the “less guns” law always only applies to good guys. How exactly is disarming the defender going to help?

“Gun violence” is crappy loaded term, but let’s look into it anyways. If we by some magic eliminate all firearms overnight, we are still left with VIOLENCE. Murderer doesn’t throw up his arms saying “Hell, I really wanted to kill this guy, but since I don’t have a gun, I guess I will do some gardening work instead.” People killed and maimed each other wholesale long before invention of gun powder.

If we eliminate violence, guns are just going to lay there, rusting slowly, (or they will get used for fun) killing zero people.

This should give us the answer to question “On which part of the dreaded ‘gun violence’ should we concentrate if we want to save lives?”

My opinion is that the gun control is an end by itself and mass shootings (but for some reason not black gang bangers shooting hundreds of other black gang gangers) is just a pretext. Never ending coverage of these heinous crimes on national tv serves to brainwash viewers into supporting civilian disarmament. And to prod next nutjob to try to beat the score.

We should ask ourselves, what they plan to do to us when/if they get us, the people, good and defenseless?